We are stronger because of the way we handled issue of women bishops, says Rt Revd John Pritchard, Bishop of Oxford

WELL, we finally did it. On Monday, the General Synod approved the legislation to allow women to become bishops in the Church of England. At long last we can enrich the Church with the many gifts that women bring to the party.

About time too, you might say. Well, yes. Like many others, I celebrated on Monday night. I was absolutely delighted – relieved and joyful – that the vote went through so overwhelmingly. I know our life as a Church will be richly enhanced by having women at the top, with all they bring.

Earlier this year, along with 350 of my clergy, I was privileged to spend time with Bishop Victoria Matthews, who has been an Anglican bishop for 20 years, first in Canada, and more recently in New Zealand. She was inspirational.

To the world at large, the Church of England has been playing catch up. After all, we’ve had women priests for two decades, and it seems unthinkable that it has taken us so long. Our women clergy have had to be extremely patient.

But actually it’s not quite as simple as all that. There are those in the Church of England, albeit a very small number, who believe that women should not hold positions of leadership in the Church, some because Jesus chose only men as his disciples and others because this is out of step with our Roman Catholic friends. For them, this is a matter of conscience.

And as a Church, we genuinely want to embrace those faithful Christians who hold different views from our own. As the Archbishop of Canterbury said on Monday, we’re not a political party, where we throw out the people we don’t agree with. The Church is a family: we may disagree vehemently, but we have to live together.

That is why it has taken us so long to get where we are today. In November 2012, like many others, I felt utterly let down when the Synod rejected the legislation before us. It felt like a disaster. A lot of heart-searching has gone on since then, and the different groups within the Church have worked hard to understand each other.

By doing so, I think we demonstrated something powerful about handling of disagreement: that it is possible to do so in a better way than allowing anger and conflict to win the day. On Monday the tone of the debate was gracious and respectful, and the voting made it clear that the battle for hearts and minds had been won.

Today I believe we are a stronger, healthier Church as a result. The legislation still has to go through Parliament and receive Royal Assent, but we are told we can expect the first appointment of a woman bishop early next year.

With my forthcoming retirement, Oxford is likely to be one of the very first appointments of a diocesan bishop (as opposed to a less senior ‘suffragan’) open to a woman. While Oxford has a proud history of championing women in ministry, the fact that we are such a large diocese probably makes such a choice unlikely, this time at least. Most incoming Bishops of Oxford, myself included, have already served as a suffragan elsewhere.

Who knows? It is not up to me, of course. For myself, I look forward to the day when we stop talking about ‘women bishops’ in the Church of England and simply refer to ‘bishops.’

Comments

"We are stronger because of the way we handled issue of women bishops"......
.....why?
Women are humans too, why shouldn't they be allowed to preach about a mythical being.

"We are stronger because of the way we handled issue of women bishops"......
.....why?
Women are humans too, why shouldn't they be allowed to preach about a mythical being.Dilligaf2010

"We are stronger because of the way we handled issue of women bishops"......
.....why?
Women are humans too, why shouldn't they be allowed to preach about a mythical being.

Score: 0

xenarthra
10:22am Mon 21 Jul 14

"There are those in the Church of England, albeit a very small number, who believe that women should not hold positions of leadership in the Church, some because Jesus chose only men as his disciples and others because this is out of step with our Roman Catholic friends. For them, this is a matter of conscience. "

What a disingenuous statement. The primary reason held by those that oppose having women in position of spiritual authority in the church is that it goes against God's express teaching in the bible: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve."; "Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ...", etc.

The bible teaches that women and men have equal value. It has examples of female military leaders, businesswomen, prophetesses, deaconesses, women hosting church meetings, etc.. But it is equally clear that only men should have spiritual authority in the church, and that those men and women who are not given this authority should submit to it, just as Jesus submits to his father's will.

For those that object, it is not a matter of personal conscience, but of obedience to the scriptural foundation of the Christian church.

"There are those in the Church of England, albeit a very small number, who believe that women should not hold positions of leadership in the Church, some because Jesus chose only men as his disciples and others because this is out of step with our Roman Catholic friends. For them, this is a matter of conscience. "
What a disingenuous statement. The primary reason held by those that oppose having women in position of spiritual authority in the church is that it goes against God's express teaching in the bible: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve."; "Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ...", etc.
The bible teaches that women and men have equal value. It has examples of female military leaders, businesswomen, prophetesses, deaconesses, women hosting church meetings, etc.. But it is equally clear that only men should have spiritual authority in the church, and that those men and women who are not given this authority should submit to it, just as Jesus submits to his father's will.
For those that object, it is not a matter of personal conscience, but of obedience to the scriptural foundation of the Christian church.xenarthra

"There are those in the Church of England, albeit a very small number, who believe that women should not hold positions of leadership in the Church, some because Jesus chose only men as his disciples and others because this is out of step with our Roman Catholic friends. For them, this is a matter of conscience. "

What a disingenuous statement. The primary reason held by those that oppose having women in position of spiritual authority in the church is that it goes against God's express teaching in the bible: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve."; "Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ...", etc.

The bible teaches that women and men have equal value. It has examples of female military leaders, businesswomen, prophetesses, deaconesses, women hosting church meetings, etc.. But it is equally clear that only men should have spiritual authority in the church, and that those men and women who are not given this authority should submit to it, just as Jesus submits to his father's will.

For those that object, it is not a matter of personal conscience, but of obedience to the scriptural foundation of the Christian church.

Score: 2

xenarthra
10:24am Mon 21 Jul 14

Dilligaf2010 wrote…

"We are stronger because of the way we handled issue of women bishops"......
.....why?
Women are humans too, why shouldn't they be allowed to preach about a mythical being.

You seem to be a bit confused: the Church of England has had female priests and lay readers for years. This article is about bishops.

[quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote:
"We are stronger because of the way we handled issue of women bishops"......
.....why?
Women are humans too, why shouldn't they be allowed to preach about a mythical being.[/p][/quote]You seem to be a bit confused: the Church of England has had female priests and lay readers for years. This article is about bishops.xenarthra

Dilligaf2010 wrote…

"We are stronger because of the way we handled issue of women bishops"......
.....why?
Women are humans too, why shouldn't they be allowed to preach about a mythical being.

You seem to be a bit confused: the Church of England has had female priests and lay readers for years. This article is about bishops.

Xenarthra seems to believe the Bible literally. Does this mean that she/he believes these edicts from the Bible?

Whoever works on the sabbath shall be put to death (Exodus 31.15).

You cannot be Jesus's disciple unless you hate your family (Luke 14.26).

If you are having a fight, and your wife tries to stop it by grabbing your opponent’s genitals, you must cut your wife’s hand off (Deuteronomy 25.11).

Disabled people shall not approach the altar, including anyone who is hunchbacked or has a flat nose (Leviticus 21.18).

Xenarthra seems to believe the Bible literally. Does this mean that she/he believes these edicts from the Bible?
Whoever works on the sabbath shall be put to death (Exodus 31.15).
You cannot be Jesus's disciple unless you hate your family (Luke 14.26).
If you are having a fight, and your wife tries to stop it by grabbing your opponent’s genitals, you must cut your wife’s hand off (Deuteronomy 25.11).
Disabled people shall not approach the altar, including anyone who is hunchbacked or has a flat nose (Leviticus 21.18).Oxonian

Xenarthra seems to believe the Bible literally. Does this mean that she/he believes these edicts from the Bible?

Whoever works on the sabbath shall be put to death (Exodus 31.15).

You cannot be Jesus's disciple unless you hate your family (Luke 14.26).

If you are having a fight, and your wife tries to stop it by grabbing your opponent’s genitals, you must cut your wife’s hand off (Deuteronomy 25.11).

Disabled people shall not approach the altar, including anyone who is hunchbacked or has a flat nose (Leviticus 21.18).

Score: 1

xenarthra
2:29pm Mon 21 Jul 14

Oxonian wrote…

Xenarthra seems to believe the Bible literally. Does this mean that she/he believes these edicts from the Bible?

Whoever works on the sabbath shall be put to death (Exodus 31.15).

You cannot be Jesus's disciple unless you hate your family (Luke 14.26).

If you are having a fight, and your wife tries to stop it by grabbing your opponent’s genitals, you must cut your wife’s hand off (Deuteronomy 25.11).

Disabled people shall not approach the altar, including anyone who is hunchbacked or has a flat nose (Leviticus 21.18).

I'm not really sure what you mean by "believing" an edict; nor what you mean by "literally". Psalm 98 says "Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy". I've never met anyone who doesn't recognise that this is figurative. If I were to say that "Oxonian seems to believe the Oxford Mail literally", it doesn't make much sense, does it? You seem to be setting up a straw man to knock down.

As to the passages you mention from the law given to the Israelites, then, yes, I believe these are laws that God gave to the Israelites. Does that answer your question? Or are you suggesting that Christians should still be implementing them today? If so, you seem to be confusing Christianity with Judaism. Talk to any Christian you know, and he or she will, I am sure, gladly explain the differences to you.

As to Jesus' statement in Luke 14.26, again, I'm not sure if your question is "do I believe Jesus said this" or "do I believe I should hate my family". The answer is "yes" to the first, and a qualified "yes" to the second. The qualification is that Jesus meant that his disciples should love Jesus to such an extent that all human relationships can be considered hatred in comparison. In practise, this would mean choosing to follow Jesus, not one's family, if the two pull in different directions. Regarding your "literal" point, this is an example of "hyperbole".

If you bother to look, I think you'll find that the bible and Christians are rather more sophisticated than you give them credit for.

[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote:
Xenarthra seems to believe the Bible literally. Does this mean that she/he believes these edicts from the Bible?
Whoever works on the sabbath shall be put to death (Exodus 31.15).
You cannot be Jesus's disciple unless you hate your family (Luke 14.26).
If you are having a fight, and your wife tries to stop it by grabbing your opponent’s genitals, you must cut your wife’s hand off (Deuteronomy 25.11).
Disabled people shall not approach the altar, including anyone who is hunchbacked or has a flat nose (Leviticus 21.18).[/p][/quote]I'm not really sure what you mean by "believing" an edict; nor what you mean by "literally". Psalm 98 says "Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy". I've never met anyone who doesn't recognise that this is figurative. If I were to say that "Oxonian seems to believe the Oxford Mail literally", it doesn't make much sense, does it? You seem to be setting up a straw man to knock down.
As to the passages you mention from the law given to the Israelites, then, yes, I believe these are laws that God gave to the Israelites. Does that answer your question? Or are you suggesting that Christians should still be implementing them today? If so, you seem to be confusing Christianity with Judaism. Talk to any Christian you know, and he or she will, I am sure, gladly explain the differences to you.
As to Jesus' statement in Luke 14.26, again, I'm not sure if your question is "do I believe Jesus said this" or "do I believe I should hate my family". The answer is "yes" to the first, and a qualified "yes" to the second. The qualification is that Jesus meant that his disciples should love Jesus to such an extent that all human relationships can be considered hatred in comparison. In practise, this would mean choosing to follow Jesus, not one's family, if the two pull in different directions. Regarding your "literal" point, this is an example of "hyperbole".
If you bother to look, I think you'll find that the bible and Christians are rather more sophisticated than you give them credit for.xenarthra

Oxonian wrote…

Xenarthra seems to believe the Bible literally. Does this mean that she/he believes these edicts from the Bible?

Whoever works on the sabbath shall be put to death (Exodus 31.15).

You cannot be Jesus's disciple unless you hate your family (Luke 14.26).

If you are having a fight, and your wife tries to stop it by grabbing your opponent’s genitals, you must cut your wife’s hand off (Deuteronomy 25.11).

Disabled people shall not approach the altar, including anyone who is hunchbacked or has a flat nose (Leviticus 21.18).

I'm not really sure what you mean by "believing" an edict; nor what you mean by "literally". Psalm 98 says "Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy". I've never met anyone who doesn't recognise that this is figurative. If I were to say that "Oxonian seems to believe the Oxford Mail literally", it doesn't make much sense, does it? You seem to be setting up a straw man to knock down.

As to the passages you mention from the law given to the Israelites, then, yes, I believe these are laws that God gave to the Israelites. Does that answer your question? Or are you suggesting that Christians should still be implementing them today? If so, you seem to be confusing Christianity with Judaism. Talk to any Christian you know, and he or she will, I am sure, gladly explain the differences to you.

As to Jesus' statement in Luke 14.26, again, I'm not sure if your question is "do I believe Jesus said this" or "do I believe I should hate my family". The answer is "yes" to the first, and a qualified "yes" to the second. The qualification is that Jesus meant that his disciples should love Jesus to such an extent that all human relationships can be considered hatred in comparison. In practise, this would mean choosing to follow Jesus, not one's family, if the two pull in different directions. Regarding your "literal" point, this is an example of "hyperbole".

If you bother to look, I think you'll find that the bible and Christians are rather more sophisticated than you give them credit for.

Score: 0

mytaxes
2:32pm Mon 21 Jul 14

I guess the church is rather like the EU and Ireland, you get everyone to keep voting until they get it right.

I guess the church is rather like the EU and Ireland, you get everyone to keep voting until they get it right.mytaxes

I guess the church is rather like the EU and Ireland, you get everyone to keep voting until they get it right.

Score: 0

xenarthra
8:08pm Mon 21 Jul 14

Oxonian wrote…

xenarthra wrote…

Oxonian wrote…

Xenarthra seems to believe the Bible literally. Does this mean that she/he believes these edicts from the Bible?

Whoever works on the sabbath shall be put to death (Exodus 31.15).

You cannot be Jesus's disciple unless you hate your family (Luke 14.26).

If you are having a fight, and your wife tries to stop it by grabbing your opponent’s genitals, you must cut your wife’s hand off (Deuteronomy 25.11).

Disabled people shall not approach the altar, including anyone who is hunchbacked or has a flat nose (Leviticus 21.18).

I'm not really sure what you mean by "believing" an edict; nor what you mean by "literally". Psalm 98 says "Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy". I've never met anyone who doesn't recognise that this is figurative. If I were to say that "Oxonian seems to believe the Oxford Mail literally", it doesn't make much sense, does it? You seem to be setting up a straw man to knock down.

As to the passages you mention from the law given to the Israelites, then, yes, I believe these are laws that God gave to the Israelites. Does that answer your question? Or are you suggesting that Christians should still be implementing them today? If so, you seem to be confusing Christianity with Judaism. Talk to any Christian you know, and he or she will, I am sure, gladly explain the differences to you.

As to Jesus' statement in Luke 14.26, again, I'm not sure if your question is "do I believe Jesus said this" or "do I believe I should hate my family". The answer is "yes" to the first, and a qualified "yes" to the second. The qualification is that Jesus meant that his disciples should love Jesus to such an extent that all human relationships can be considered hatred in comparison. In practise, this would mean choosing to follow Jesus, not one's family, if the two pull in different directions. Regarding your "literal" point, this is an example of "hyperbole".

If you bother to look, I think you'll find that the bible and Christians are rather more sophisticated than you give them credit for.

I used the word "literally" because you make statements like "God's express teaching in the bible: 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve".'

This suggests that you believe that God literally gave this as his assessment of women's role, even though the words come from one of Paul's epistles, which doesn't necessarily strike me as the same thing as God's words. In fact Paul’s epistles contain many of the insulting opinions about women used by some Christians as reasons for subjugating women.

Saying that these are God's ideas is even more preposterous, because God is quoted as using Adam and Eve as a reason for subjugating women, although we know that Adam and Eve are fictitious characters (or do you think that they were real?)

You dismiss my quotations from the Old Testament by saying that "these are laws that God gave to the Israelites", as if they are not relevant to later Christian teaching. But in Matthew 5.17, Jesus is quoted as saying “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets”.

In an earlier post, you talked about "obedience to the scriptural foundation of the Christian church". So how much of the Bible should we obey? How much of the Bible is "the word of God"?

The bible is, by definition, that collection of books and letters that the Christian church has, throughout the ages, regarded as canonical; i.e. as containing God's revelation to humanity. The bible presents Paul as one of God's chosen messengers: "But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel." (Acts 9:15). Paul writes at God's command and with His authority: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy my true son in the faith..." (1 Timothy 1).

I have never witnessed any subjugation of women in the church, nor am I aware of any Christian women who feel insulted by Paul's epistles.

I'm sad that you regard orthodox Christian belief as preposterous. You are setting yourself up against a great many very learned people throughout the ages and around the world who would say that you are the one who is mistaken.

Whether Adam and Eve are real (as I, along with the majority of the people alive today, believe) or figurative does not ultimately change my point that the Rt Revd John Pritchard, Bishop of Oxford is misrepresenting (unconsciously, I hope) the reasons why some in the church oppose women bishops.

I would be happy to explain Matthew 5:17 to you, but am not sure whether you actually want me to or not. (You have not suddenly to have discovered a new interpretation of this verse that has been missed by all the Christian theologians who have studied it over the last 2000 years).

All of the bible is the word of God. All of it is instructive. Not all of it is binding on Christian today. If you are interested in finding out more, I would recommend reading the epistle to the Hebrew chapters 8 to 10.

[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]xenarthra[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote:
Xenarthra seems to believe the Bible literally. Does this mean that she/he believes these edicts from the Bible?
Whoever works on the sabbath shall be put to death (Exodus 31.15).
You cannot be Jesus's disciple unless you hate your family (Luke 14.26).
If you are having a fight, and your wife tries to stop it by grabbing your opponent’s genitals, you must cut your wife’s hand off (Deuteronomy 25.11).
Disabled people shall not approach the altar, including anyone who is hunchbacked or has a flat nose (Leviticus 21.18).[/p][/quote]I'm not really sure what you mean by "believing" an edict; nor what you mean by "literally". Psalm 98 says "Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy". I've never met anyone who doesn't recognise that this is figurative. If I were to say that "Oxonian seems to believe the Oxford Mail literally", it doesn't make much sense, does it? You seem to be setting up a straw man to knock down.
As to the passages you mention from the law given to the Israelites, then, yes, I believe these are laws that God gave to the Israelites. Does that answer your question? Or are you suggesting that Christians should still be implementing them today? If so, you seem to be confusing Christianity with Judaism. Talk to any Christian you know, and he or she will, I am sure, gladly explain the differences to you.
As to Jesus' statement in Luke 14.26, again, I'm not sure if your question is "do I believe Jesus said this" or "do I believe I should hate my family". The answer is "yes" to the first, and a qualified "yes" to the second. The qualification is that Jesus meant that his disciples should love Jesus to such an extent that all human relationships can be considered hatred in comparison. In practise, this would mean choosing to follow Jesus, not one's family, if the two pull in different directions. Regarding your "literal" point, this is an example of "hyperbole".
If you bother to look, I think you'll find that the bible and Christians are rather more sophisticated than you give them credit for.[/p][/quote]I used the word "literally" because you make statements like "God's express teaching in the bible: 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve".'
This suggests that you believe that God literally gave this as his assessment of women's role, even though the words come from one of Paul's epistles, which doesn't necessarily strike me as the same thing as God's words. In fact Paul’s epistles contain many of the insulting opinions about women used by some Christians as reasons for subjugating women.
Saying that these are God's ideas is even more preposterous, because God is quoted as using Adam and Eve as a reason for subjugating women, although we know that Adam and Eve are fictitious characters (or do you think that they were real?)
You dismiss my quotations from the Old Testament by saying that "these are laws that God gave to the Israelites", as if they are not relevant to later Christian teaching. But in Matthew 5.17, Jesus is quoted as saying “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets”.
In an earlier post, you talked about "obedience to the scriptural foundation of the Christian church". So how much of the Bible should we obey? How much of the Bible is "the word of God"?[/p][/quote]The bible is, by definition, that collection of books and letters that the Christian church has, throughout the ages, regarded as canonical; i.e. as containing God's revelation to humanity. The bible presents Paul as one of God's chosen messengers: "But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel." (Acts 9:15). Paul writes at God's command and with His authority: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy my true son in the faith..." (1 Timothy 1).
I have never witnessed any subjugation of women in the church, nor am I aware of any Christian women who feel insulted by Paul's epistles.
I'm sad that you regard orthodox Christian belief as preposterous. You are setting yourself up against a great many very learned people throughout the ages and around the world who would say that you are the one who is mistaken.
Whether Adam and Eve are real (as I, along with the majority of the people alive today, believe) or figurative does not ultimately change my point that the Rt Revd John Pritchard, Bishop of Oxford is misrepresenting (unconsciously, I hope) the reasons why some in the church oppose women bishops.
I would be happy to explain Matthew 5:17 to you, but am not sure whether you actually want me to or not. (You have not suddenly to have discovered a new interpretation of this verse that has been missed by all the Christian theologians who have studied it over the last 2000 years).
All of the bible is the word of God. All of it is instructive. Not all of it is binding on Christian today. If you are interested in finding out more, I would recommend reading the epistle to the Hebrew chapters 8 to 10.xenarthra

Oxonian wrote…

xenarthra wrote…

Oxonian wrote…

Xenarthra seems to believe the Bible literally. Does this mean that she/he believes these edicts from the Bible?

Whoever works on the sabbath shall be put to death (Exodus 31.15).

You cannot be Jesus's disciple unless you hate your family (Luke 14.26).

If you are having a fight, and your wife tries to stop it by grabbing your opponent’s genitals, you must cut your wife’s hand off (Deuteronomy 25.11).

Disabled people shall not approach the altar, including anyone who is hunchbacked or has a flat nose (Leviticus 21.18).

I'm not really sure what you mean by "believing" an edict; nor what you mean by "literally". Psalm 98 says "Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy". I've never met anyone who doesn't recognise that this is figurative. If I were to say that "Oxonian seems to believe the Oxford Mail literally", it doesn't make much sense, does it? You seem to be setting up a straw man to knock down.

As to the passages you mention from the law given to the Israelites, then, yes, I believe these are laws that God gave to the Israelites. Does that answer your question? Or are you suggesting that Christians should still be implementing them today? If so, you seem to be confusing Christianity with Judaism. Talk to any Christian you know, and he or she will, I am sure, gladly explain the differences to you.

As to Jesus' statement in Luke 14.26, again, I'm not sure if your question is "do I believe Jesus said this" or "do I believe I should hate my family". The answer is "yes" to the first, and a qualified "yes" to the second. The qualification is that Jesus meant that his disciples should love Jesus to such an extent that all human relationships can be considered hatred in comparison. In practise, this would mean choosing to follow Jesus, not one's family, if the two pull in different directions. Regarding your "literal" point, this is an example of "hyperbole".

If you bother to look, I think you'll find that the bible and Christians are rather more sophisticated than you give them credit for.

I used the word "literally" because you make statements like "God's express teaching in the bible: 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve".'

This suggests that you believe that God literally gave this as his assessment of women's role, even though the words come from one of Paul's epistles, which doesn't necessarily strike me as the same thing as God's words. In fact Paul’s epistles contain many of the insulting opinions about women used by some Christians as reasons for subjugating women.

Saying that these are God's ideas is even more preposterous, because God is quoted as using Adam and Eve as a reason for subjugating women, although we know that Adam and Eve are fictitious characters (or do you think that they were real?)

You dismiss my quotations from the Old Testament by saying that "these are laws that God gave to the Israelites", as if they are not relevant to later Christian teaching. But in Matthew 5.17, Jesus is quoted as saying “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets”.

In an earlier post, you talked about "obedience to the scriptural foundation of the Christian church". So how much of the Bible should we obey? How much of the Bible is "the word of God"?

The bible is, by definition, that collection of books and letters that the Christian church has, throughout the ages, regarded as canonical; i.e. as containing God's revelation to humanity. The bible presents Paul as one of God's chosen messengers: "But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel." (Acts 9:15). Paul writes at God's command and with His authority: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy my true son in the faith..." (1 Timothy 1).

I have never witnessed any subjugation of women in the church, nor am I aware of any Christian women who feel insulted by Paul's epistles.

I'm sad that you regard orthodox Christian belief as preposterous. You are setting yourself up against a great many very learned people throughout the ages and around the world who would say that you are the one who is mistaken.

Whether Adam and Eve are real (as I, along with the majority of the people alive today, believe) or figurative does not ultimately change my point that the Rt Revd John Pritchard, Bishop of Oxford is misrepresenting (unconsciously, I hope) the reasons why some in the church oppose women bishops.

I would be happy to explain Matthew 5:17 to you, but am not sure whether you actually want me to or not. (You have not suddenly to have discovered a new interpretation of this verse that has been missed by all the Christian theologians who have studied it over the last 2000 years).

All of the bible is the word of God. All of it is instructive. Not all of it is binding on Christian today. If you are interested in finding out more, I would recommend reading the epistle to the Hebrew chapters 8 to 10.

Score: -1

The New Private Eye
7:34pm Mon 21 Jul 14

I do not really understand the problem. If one chooses to believe in a mythical entity, what difference does it make if the story is told to you by a man or a woman? Now with the footy (a real thing) we want men commentating, a bit like netball when we want women commentators. But C'mon, if you believe in a virgin Birth, you can believe in anything.

I do not really understand the problem. If one chooses to believe in a mythical entity, what difference does it make if the story is told to you by a man or a woman? Now with the footy (a real thing) we want men commentating, a bit like netball when we want women commentators. But C'mon, if you believe in a virgin Birth, you can believe in anything.The New Private Eye

I do not really understand the problem. If one chooses to believe in a mythical entity, what difference does it make if the story is told to you by a man or a woman? Now with the footy (a real thing) we want men commentating, a bit like netball when we want women commentators. But C'mon, if you believe in a virgin Birth, you can believe in anything.

Score: -2

Oxonian
7:36pm Mon 21 Jul 14

xenarthra wrote…

Oxonian wrote…

Xenarthra seems to believe the Bible literally. Does this mean that she/he believes these edicts from the Bible?

Whoever works on the sabbath shall be put to death (Exodus 31.15).

You cannot be Jesus's disciple unless you hate your family (Luke 14.26).

If you are having a fight, and your wife tries to stop it by grabbing your opponent’s genitals, you must cut your wife’s hand off (Deuteronomy 25.11).

Disabled people shall not approach the altar, including anyone who is hunchbacked or has a flat nose (Leviticus 21.18).

I'm not really sure what you mean by "believing" an edict; nor what you mean by "literally". Psalm 98 says "Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy". I've never met anyone who doesn't recognise that this is figurative. If I were to say that "Oxonian seems to believe the Oxford Mail literally", it doesn't make much sense, does it? You seem to be setting up a straw man to knock down.

As to the passages you mention from the law given to the Israelites, then, yes, I believe these are laws that God gave to the Israelites. Does that answer your question? Or are you suggesting that Christians should still be implementing them today? If so, you seem to be confusing Christianity with Judaism. Talk to any Christian you know, and he or she will, I am sure, gladly explain the differences to you.

As to Jesus' statement in Luke 14.26, again, I'm not sure if your question is "do I believe Jesus said this" or "do I believe I should hate my family". The answer is "yes" to the first, and a qualified "yes" to the second. The qualification is that Jesus meant that his disciples should love Jesus to such an extent that all human relationships can be considered hatred in comparison. In practise, this would mean choosing to follow Jesus, not one's family, if the two pull in different directions. Regarding your "literal" point, this is an example of "hyperbole".

If you bother to look, I think you'll find that the bible and Christians are rather more sophisticated than you give them credit for.

I used the word "literally" because you make statements like "God's express teaching in the bible: 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve".'

This suggests that you believe that God literally gave this as his assessment of women's role, even though the words come from one of Paul's epistles, which doesn't necessarily strike me as the same thing as God's words. In fact Paul’s epistles contain many of the insulting opinions about women used by some Christians as reasons for subjugating women.

Saying that these are God's ideas is even more preposterous, because God is quoted as using Adam and Eve as a reason for subjugating women, although we know that Adam and Eve are fictitious characters (or do you think that they were real?)

You dismiss my quotations from the Old Testament by saying that "these are laws that God gave to the Israelites", as if they are not relevant to later Christian teaching. But in Matthew 5.17, Jesus is quoted as saying “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets”.

In an earlier post, you talked about "obedience to the scriptural foundation of the Christian church". So how much of the Bible should we obey? How much of the Bible is "the word of God"?

[quote][p][bold]xenarthra[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote:
Xenarthra seems to believe the Bible literally. Does this mean that she/he believes these edicts from the Bible?
Whoever works on the sabbath shall be put to death (Exodus 31.15).
You cannot be Jesus's disciple unless you hate your family (Luke 14.26).
If you are having a fight, and your wife tries to stop it by grabbing your opponent’s genitals, you must cut your wife’s hand off (Deuteronomy 25.11).
Disabled people shall not approach the altar, including anyone who is hunchbacked or has a flat nose (Leviticus 21.18).[/p][/quote]I'm not really sure what you mean by "believing" an edict; nor what you mean by "literally". Psalm 98 says "Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy". I've never met anyone who doesn't recognise that this is figurative. If I were to say that "Oxonian seems to believe the Oxford Mail literally", it doesn't make much sense, does it? You seem to be setting up a straw man to knock down.
As to the passages you mention from the law given to the Israelites, then, yes, I believe these are laws that God gave to the Israelites. Does that answer your question? Or are you suggesting that Christians should still be implementing them today? If so, you seem to be confusing Christianity with Judaism. Talk to any Christian you know, and he or she will, I am sure, gladly explain the differences to you.
As to Jesus' statement in Luke 14.26, again, I'm not sure if your question is "do I believe Jesus said this" or "do I believe I should hate my family". The answer is "yes" to the first, and a qualified "yes" to the second. The qualification is that Jesus meant that his disciples should love Jesus to such an extent that all human relationships can be considered hatred in comparison. In practise, this would mean choosing to follow Jesus, not one's family, if the two pull in different directions. Regarding your "literal" point, this is an example of "hyperbole".
If you bother to look, I think you'll find that the bible and Christians are rather more sophisticated than you give them credit for.[/p][/quote]I used the word "literally" because you make statements like "God's express teaching in the bible: 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve".'
This suggests that you believe that God literally gave this as his assessment of women's role, even though the words come from one of Paul's epistles, which doesn't necessarily strike me as the same thing as God's words. In fact Paul’s epistles contain many of the insulting opinions about women used by some Christians as reasons for subjugating women.
Saying that these are God's ideas is even more preposterous, because God is quoted as using Adam and Eve as a reason for subjugating women, although we know that Adam and Eve are fictitious characters (or do you think that they were real?)
You dismiss my quotations from the Old Testament by saying that "these are laws that God gave to the Israelites", as if they are not relevant to later Christian teaching. But in Matthew 5.17, Jesus is quoted as saying “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets”.
In an earlier post, you talked about "obedience to the scriptural foundation of the Christian church". So how much of the Bible should we obey? How much of the Bible is "the word of God"?Oxonian

xenarthra wrote…

Oxonian wrote…

Xenarthra seems to believe the Bible literally. Does this mean that she/he believes these edicts from the Bible?

Whoever works on the sabbath shall be put to death (Exodus 31.15).

You cannot be Jesus's disciple unless you hate your family (Luke 14.26).

If you are having a fight, and your wife tries to stop it by grabbing your opponent’s genitals, you must cut your wife’s hand off (Deuteronomy 25.11).

Disabled people shall not approach the altar, including anyone who is hunchbacked or has a flat nose (Leviticus 21.18).

I'm not really sure what you mean by "believing" an edict; nor what you mean by "literally". Psalm 98 says "Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy". I've never met anyone who doesn't recognise that this is figurative. If I were to say that "Oxonian seems to believe the Oxford Mail literally", it doesn't make much sense, does it? You seem to be setting up a straw man to knock down.

As to the passages you mention from the law given to the Israelites, then, yes, I believe these are laws that God gave to the Israelites. Does that answer your question? Or are you suggesting that Christians should still be implementing them today? If so, you seem to be confusing Christianity with Judaism. Talk to any Christian you know, and he or she will, I am sure, gladly explain the differences to you.

As to Jesus' statement in Luke 14.26, again, I'm not sure if your question is "do I believe Jesus said this" or "do I believe I should hate my family". The answer is "yes" to the first, and a qualified "yes" to the second. The qualification is that Jesus meant that his disciples should love Jesus to such an extent that all human relationships can be considered hatred in comparison. In practise, this would mean choosing to follow Jesus, not one's family, if the two pull in different directions. Regarding your "literal" point, this is an example of "hyperbole".

If you bother to look, I think you'll find that the bible and Christians are rather more sophisticated than you give them credit for.

I used the word "literally" because you make statements like "God's express teaching in the bible: 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve".'

This suggests that you believe that God literally gave this as his assessment of women's role, even though the words come from one of Paul's epistles, which doesn't necessarily strike me as the same thing as God's words. In fact Paul’s epistles contain many of the insulting opinions about women used by some Christians as reasons for subjugating women.

Saying that these are God's ideas is even more preposterous, because God is quoted as using Adam and Eve as a reason for subjugating women, although we know that Adam and Eve are fictitious characters (or do you think that they were real?)

You dismiss my quotations from the Old Testament by saying that "these are laws that God gave to the Israelites", as if they are not relevant to later Christian teaching. But in Matthew 5.17, Jesus is quoted as saying “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets”.

In an earlier post, you talked about "obedience to the scriptural foundation of the Christian church". So how much of the Bible should we obey? How much of the Bible is "the word of God"?

Score: 0

xenarthra
8:09pm Mon 21 Jul 14

The New Private Eye wrote…

I do not really understand the problem. If one chooses to believe in a mythical entity, what difference does it make if the story is told to you by a man or a woman? Now with the footy (a real thing) we want men commentating, a bit like netball when we want women commentators. But C'mon, if you believe in a virgin Birth, you can believe in anything.

This article is about women bishops, not preachers. The Church of England has had female priests and lay readers for years.

[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote:
I do not really understand the problem. If one chooses to believe in a mythical entity, what difference does it make if the story is told to you by a man or a woman? Now with the footy (a real thing) we want men commentating, a bit like netball when we want women commentators. But C'mon, if you believe in a virgin Birth, you can believe in anything.[/p][/quote]This article is about women bishops, not preachers. The Church of England has had female priests and lay readers for years.xenarthra

The New Private Eye wrote…

I do not really understand the problem. If one chooses to believe in a mythical entity, what difference does it make if the story is told to you by a man or a woman? Now with the footy (a real thing) we want men commentating, a bit like netball when we want women commentators. But C'mon, if you believe in a virgin Birth, you can believe in anything.

This article is about women bishops, not preachers. The Church of England has had female priests and lay readers for years.

Score: 1

The New Private Eye
2:36pm Tue 22 Jul 14

xenarthra wrote…

The New Private Eye wrote…

I do not really understand the problem. If one chooses to believe in a mythical entity, what difference does it make if the story is told to you by a man or a woman? Now with the footy (a real thing) we want men commentating, a bit like netball when we want women commentators. But C'mon, if you believe in a virgin Birth, you can believe in anything.

This article is about women bishops, not preachers. The Church of England has had female priests and lay readers for years.

What does a bishop do? not do sunday service

[quote][p][bold]xenarthra[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote:
I do not really understand the problem. If one chooses to believe in a mythical entity, what difference does it make if the story is told to you by a man or a woman? Now with the footy (a real thing) we want men commentating, a bit like netball when we want women commentators. But C'mon, if you believe in a virgin Birth, you can believe in anything.[/p][/quote]This article is about women bishops, not preachers. The Church of England has had female priests and lay readers for years.[/p][/quote]What does a bishop do? not do sunday serviceThe New Private Eye

xenarthra wrote…

The New Private Eye wrote…

I do not really understand the problem. If one chooses to believe in a mythical entity, what difference does it make if the story is told to you by a man or a woman? Now with the footy (a real thing) we want men commentating, a bit like netball when we want women commentators. But C'mon, if you believe in a virgin Birth, you can believe in anything.

This article is about women bishops, not preachers. The Church of England has had female priests and lay readers for years.

What does a bishop do? not do sunday service

Score: -1

xenarthra
3:40pm Tue 22 Jul 14

The New Private Eye wrote…

xenarthra wrote…

The New Private Eye wrote…

I do not really understand the problem. If one chooses to believe in a mythical entity, what difference does it make if the story is told to you by a man or a woman? Now with the footy (a real thing) we want men commentating, a bit like netball when we want women commentators. But C'mon, if you believe in a virgin Birth, you can believe in anything.

This article is about women bishops, not preachers. The Church of England has had female priests and lay readers for years.

What does a bishop do? not do sunday service

The Diocese of Oxford website has a page entitled "What does a Bishop do?". You can find it using Google.

[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]xenarthra[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote:
I do not really understand the problem. If one chooses to believe in a mythical entity, what difference does it make if the story is told to you by a man or a woman? Now with the footy (a real thing) we want men commentating, a bit like netball when we want women commentators. But C'mon, if you believe in a virgin Birth, you can believe in anything.[/p][/quote]This article is about women bishops, not preachers. The Church of England has had female priests and lay readers for years.[/p][/quote]What does a bishop do? not do sunday service[/p][/quote]The Diocese of Oxford website has a page entitled "What does a Bishop do?". You can find it using Google.xenarthra

The New Private Eye wrote…

xenarthra wrote…

The New Private Eye wrote…

I do not really understand the problem. If one chooses to believe in a mythical entity, what difference does it make if the story is told to you by a man or a woman? Now with the footy (a real thing) we want men commentating, a bit like netball when we want women commentators. But C'mon, if you believe in a virgin Birth, you can believe in anything.

This article is about women bishops, not preachers. The Church of England has had female priests and lay readers for years.

What does a bishop do? not do sunday service

The Diocese of Oxford website has a page entitled "What does a Bishop do?". You can find it using Google.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here